Former Burger King Employee Files A Lawsuit | Miami Franchise Lawyershttps://www.turnpikelaw.com
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:00:27 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Former Burger King Employee Files a Lawsuit, Seeking Class-Action Certificationhttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/former-burger-king-employee-files-a-lawsuit-seeking-class-action-certification/
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:00:27 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5320Read More »]]>According to reporting from Forbes, a former Burger King cook named Jarvis Arrington has filed a lawsuit against the company. He is seeking class-action certification on behalf of every employee who has worked at any of the company’s franchise location from 2010 through 2018.

The legal claim in this case centers around the anti-poaching provision that Burger King has long included in their franchise contracts. In this article, our dedicated Miami franchise law attorneys provide an overview of the key issues that are at stake in this case.

The Background: Burger King Made it Difficult for Workers to Move Between Locations

Mr. Arrington contends that Burger King franchise locations used anti-poaching agreements to hold down wages. He was employed at a Burger King restaurant in Chicago, Illinois, making $10 per hour as a cook. He applied for the same position at another Burger King location in the city, seeking a higher wage. However, when he did so, he was informed that he needed approval from management in order to be eligible to get the job. This was due to the anti-poaching provisions Burger King allegedly used in its franchise agreements.

The Argument Against the Anti-Poaching Provision

In recent months, anti-poaching provisions — particularly in the franchise restaurant industry — have received an increasing level of scrutiny from state and federal regulators. Several U.S. states are currently probing the use of these provisions. In addition, in the fall of 2016, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a joint guidance, warning that so-called ‘naked no-poaching’ agreements would be aggressively pursued by regulators. The practice is certainly not limited to fast food operations; other franchise locations, such as Jiffy Lube and H&R Block, have been named in regulatory reviews of this practice. Employees, including Mr. Arrington, argue that these agreements violate U.S. antitrust regulations.

What Will Happen Next?

With anti-poaching agreements, the devil is often in the details. Whether or not a restriction along these lines will be deemed legally permissible depends on a number of different complex factors. In this case, Burger King (along with several other large franchise chains) has already promised to stop enforcing the anti-poaching provisions that they were previously using.

If the class action lawsuit filed by Mr. Arrington is successful, past and current Burger King employees may be entitled to compensation for the adverse impact that the unlawful anti-poaching agreements had on their wages.

Franchisors and franchisees need to be sure that they are operating with legally permissible agreements. Certain anti-poaching language is not permitted under the law. Notably, there is now strong evidence that federal regulators and state regulators will be more aggressive in enforcing rules regarding anti-poaching.

Contact Our Miami, FL Franchise Lawyers Today

At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our Miami franchise law attorneys represent both franchisors and franchisees. To set up a fully confidential review of your franchise law case, please contact our Miami office today at (305) 985-5281 or our West Palm Beach office at (561) 291-8298.

]]>The Florida Supreme Court is Set to Weigh in on the Legal Battle Over the Miami Beach Minimum Wage Lawhttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/the-florida-supreme-court-is-set-to-weigh-in-on-the-legal-battle-over-the-miami-beach-minimum-wage-law/
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:00:34 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5331Read More »]]>In 2004, Florida voters went to polls and passed a state minimum wage increase, thereby setting the Florida minimum wage at a level that is higher than the federally mandated minimum wage. As of 2018, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, whereas Florida’s state level minimum wage is $8.25 — the highest in the Southeastern United States.

Through a 2016 city ordinance, Miami Beach passed its own local minimum wage law. In doing so, the city was attempting to set the rate significantly higher than the minimum level mandated by the state of Florida. Under the ordinance, the city’s minimum wage was supposed to be $11.31 per hour, beginning on January 1st, 2019.

There have long been legal disputes over how exactly the government can regulate commercial

activity. In Florida, there has been considerable dispute between the state government and certain South Florida jurisdictions that want to pass additional regulation. In 2003, Florida passed a law that barred all local jurisdictions from making their own minimum wage requirements.

However, Miami Beach, in passing its controversial law, noted that Florida voters increased the state minimum wage on their own — through a ballot initiative that amended that state’s constitution. In the view of Miami Beach, and in the view the labor groups supporting the city, the ballot initiative overturned Florida’s preemption statute. Though, thus far, neither the circuit court nor the appeals court has agreed with the city’s assessment.

What Businesses Need to Know About Labor Compliance

Business owners always need to be sure that their company is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local labor regulations. This can be more challenging than it might seem. In some cases, it can be confusing to know exactly which laws and regulations apply. Things can also change rapidly. In the modern world, Florida businesses face a large range of complexities and uncertainty.

For example, in recent years, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has attempted to change the overtime rules, had trouble in the courts, and eventually abandoned the idea under new political leadership. On the other end of the spectrum, the DOL has been cracking down misuse of independent contractors by businesses across the country. If you are a business owner or manager with questions or concerns about employment law compliance, you should not hesitate to consult with an experienced Florida business law attorney.

Get Help From a Top Florida Business Lawyer Today

At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our Florida business law attorneys offer a full range of legal services to individuals and companies in Miami, West Palm Beach, and throughout the surrounding communities. We are proud to be the Big Firm Alternative ™. To find out more about what we can do for you and your business, contact our law offices today.

]]>Four Florida Men Indicted; Charged With Running Billion-Dollar Healthcare Fraud Schemehttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/four-florida-men-indicted-charged-with-running-billion-dollar-healthcare-fraud-scheme/
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:00:18 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5286Read More »]]>According to reporting from the Associated Press, four Florida men, six Florida companies, and one Houston, Texas-based firm have been named in an indictment alleging that they collectively carried out a nearly $1 billion healthcare fraud scheme. In a press release, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) states that tens of thousands of patients and several dozen doctors were deceived as part of a complex telemedicine fraud scheme. The DOJ alleges that several different private payers were bilked out of hundreds of millions.

Pharmaceutical Drug Fraud

The four Florida men indicted by the Department of Justice (Andrew Assad, Peter Bolos, Michael Palso, and Larry Everett Smith) are all engaged in the pharmaceutical industry. The DOJ alleges that these men improperly billed health insurers across the country for more than $930,000,000.

In its 32-count indictment, the DOJ alleges that the fraud in this case occurred between 2015 and 2018. During that time, these four individuals — using at least seven different companies — solicited insurance information from patients all across the United States. They used this information to get unwitting physicians to approve prescriptions for pain creams and other similar products that were wholly inappropriate. They then billed private payers, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, at heavily marked up prices.

How to Respond to Fraud: Be Ready to Take Action

Financial fraud comes in a wide range of different forms. From complex multi-million dollar schemes that use a web of shell companies to target large companies to text message scams that are trying to steal a couple of hundred dollars from elderly and vulnerable people, anyone can become the victim of fraud.

As this case shows, even major firms like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, which put a ton of resources into protecting their bottom line, can be victimized for years before the fraud is uncovered. If you become a victim of fraud, you need to be ready to take action. As soon as you suspect fraud, you should take the following steps:

Block access to your accounts. You need to make sure that the fraudster does not get any more of your money.

Freeze your credit. Under new government regulations, you can freeze your credit for free. This will prevent anyone from opening up an additional line of credit account using your identity.

Document everything. It is crucial that you gather all relevant documents, records, and information related to the fraud. Write down everything that you can remember.

Get legal help. An experienced Florida fraud attorney will be able to explain your rights to you and help you explore your legal options.

Contact Our South Florida Fraud Lawyers Today

At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our Florida business and consumer fraud lawyers have extensive experience helping victims recover financial compensation for their losses. If you were the victim of fraud, please do not hesitate to contact our law firm to learn more about your legal rights and your legal options. With offices in West Palm Beach and Miami, we serve communities all over South Florida.

]]>Ex-Football Coach Sues University of Miami for $3 Million; Alleges Breach of Employment Contracthttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/ex-football-coach-sues-university-of-miami-for-3-million-alleges-breach-of-employment-contract/
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 11:00:24 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5333Read More »]]>Al Golden is currently the linebackers coach for the NFL’s Detroit Lions. From 2011 to 2015, Mr. Golden served as the head coach for the University of Miami Hurricanes. His tenure ended on a low note — following a 58-0 loss to Clemson in the middle 2015 season, Miami athletic director Blake James dismissed Mr. Golden from the program.

However, Al Golden contends that Miami failed to pay him his full compensation. According to reporting from the Sun Sentinel, Mr. Golden alleges that the University of Miami breached his contract. He is seeking $3 million in financial damages from the program. In October, Mr. Golden filed a breach of contract lawsuit in a Miami, FL federal court.

How to Prevail in a Breach of Contract Claim in Florida

If you are considering pursuing a breach of contract claim in Florida, you must be able to satisfy all of the required legal elements. Breach of contract claims are highly fact specific cases. It is crucial that plaintiffs are able to bring a claim backed by strong supporting evidence. The four key factors that a plaintiff must be able to prove are as follows:

The Existence and Validity of the Contract: First and foremost, a plaintiff must be able to prove that they have a valid contract with the defendant. In some cases, defendants will attempt to escape liability by arguing that no binding agreement ever existed.

The Plaintiff Performed their Obligations: If a plaintiff also breached an agreement, the defendant may be justified in their non performance. Plaintiffs should be prepared to prove that they lived up to their end of the bargain, or that they were excused from performance. The failure to do so could undermine the legal claim.

The Defendant Materially Breach the Agreement: In the majority of contract disputes, the most important, contentious issue is the breach itself. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated their duties under the contract, and that their violation (their breach) was material to the agreement.

The Plaintiff Suffered Real, Tangible Damage: Finally, you cannot ‘punish’ another party for breaching a contract. Courts do not view contracts as moral issues. Instead, a breach of contract claim is fundamentally an economic case. The non-breaching party may seek financial compensation or other equitable relief for real, tangible damages that they suffered as a result of the breach.

Of course, there are also defenses that are available for individuals or companies that are facing breach of contract claims. Whether you are bringing legal action or are being sued for breach of contract, it is crucial that you seek guidance from an experienced Florida contract litigation attorney.

Contact Our Florida Business Litigation Lawyers Today

At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our top-rated Florida commercial law attorneys have deep experience handling breach of contract claims. To learn more about what our legal team can do for you, please reach out to our legal team today. We have offices in West Palm Beach, Miami, and Palm Beach Gardens, and we serve individuals and businesses throughout South Florida.

]]>Florida Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Defective Goods Casehttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/florida-appeals-court-reverses-summary-judgment-in-defective-goods-case/
Fri, 02 Nov 2018 10:00:51 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5322Read More »]]>On October 24th, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida reversed summary judgment in a contract lawsuit that was filed after a buyer decline to pay for goods that they alleged were defective.

In the case of Twin Rivers Engineering, Inc. v. Pacer USA, LLC, the court determined that there was still an issue of material fact that had to be resolved. Thus, the lower court’s ruling of summary judgment in favor of the seller was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Buyer’s Claim: The Products Were Defective

The seller (Pacer USA) shipped 6,000 pyroelectric detectors to the buyer (Twin Rivers Engineering). The total price of the shipment was $87,780, approximately $14.63 per unit. This was the quoted price that the two companies had previously agreed upon, and the price is not in dispute. However, according to Pacer USA, Twin Rivers neither paid for the shipment nor gave proper notification to that they were rejecting the shipment.

According to Twin Rivers, the products that were shipped were defective. They did not comply with the standards that the company needed to use in its business. In addition, Twin Rivers argued that the products did not meet the level of quality that they had been shown when offered samples. Therefore, Twin Rivers stated that it had the right to reject the shipment.

The Seller’s Response: The Buyer Waited Too Long to Reject the Shipment

In its lawsuit seeking payment, Pacer USA stated that the buyer had 30 days to reject the shipment. In supporting this argument, the seller contends that this option was clearly included in the terms and conditions page that was attached to the shipment of the goods. As the buyer did not reject shipment in time, they were responsible for paying for the products.

However, Twin Rivers denied that it ever received such a condition. While they do not contend that they took longer than 30 days to reject the shipment, they argue that they were justified in taking more time. The products were rejected after the company did some testing, and they contend that it was done within a wholly reasonable period of time.

The Appeals Court: This is a Question for the Jury

The lower court in this case ruled in favor of the seller. However, the Fourth District Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The appeals court highlighted the fact that there is still a key dispute whether or not the buyer ever actually received the terms and conditions that called for a 30 day rejection period. As such, the appeals states that this question should be resolved by a jury. A jury must review all of the relevant facts and must decide if the buyer’s rejection of the goods was reasonable.

Speak to a South Florida Commercial Litigation Attorney Today

At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our Florida contract law attorneys have deep experience representing businesses in the full range of commercial disputes. To find out more about what we can do for your company, please contact us today. With law offices in West Palm Beach, Miami, and Palm Beach Gardens, we serve companies throughout the region, including in Broward County, Miami-Dade County, and Palm Beach County.

]]>President Trump Signs the Music Modernization Act Into Lawhttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/president-trump-signs-the-music-modernization-act-into-law/
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:00:25 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5288Read More »]]>On October 11th, 2018, President Donald Trump signed the Music Modernization Act into law. The legislation — which received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress — is designed to reform American copyright law to better account for digital streaming. In this article, our top-rated Miami copyright litigation attorneys highlight three of the most important things that you should know about the Music Modernization Act.

The New Law Makes it Easier for Copyright Holders to Be Paid for Streaming

One of the primary goals of the Music Modernization Act is to make the United States Copyright Act more functional in a world where a huge percentage of people listen to music largely through online streaming services. According to data provided by Recode, streaming makes up more than 60 percent of the music business. That number is only expected to grow more in the coming years. Under the system that is being phased out, copyright holders often have a difficult time getting fair market value for the streaming of their music. The legislation creates a new entity — funded by the big streaming services — that will grant blanket licenses for musical works to all participating digital music companies. It will then allow the mechanical royalty rates to adjust on an open market. The goal is to promote a more functional and efficient system.

The Bill Provides Enhanced Rights to the Producers of Songs

As part of the overall package signed by President Trump, the Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act will also become law. This legislation creates a much easier path to royalty payments for music producers and engineers. They will get quicker access to their royalty payments when songs are played on digital radio. To be clear, the AMP Act does not create new rights for producers and engineers, it simply provides them direct access to royalties. Previously, they generally had to get royalties through the individual artists.

The Legislation Grants Rights to Pre-1972 Songwriters and Performers

Finally, this copyright law reform package also includes the passage of the Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act. Under this part of the bill, pre-1972 recordings will be entitled to copyright protection in regards to digital audio transmission. This is a major change. Under current federal copyright law, recordings made prior to 1972 are not entitled to protection. Slowly these older recordings will enter the public domain for the purposes of digital transmission. The process will begin in a few years, with all recordings from prior to 1923 entering the public domain first.

Speak to a Florida Copyright Lawyer Today

Copyright law is notoriously complex. If you are involved in any type of copyright dispute, you need to be ready to seek professional legal representation. At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our skilled South Florida copyright litigation attorneys have the skills and experience to protect your rights. With office locations in West Palm Beach, Miami, and Palm Beach Gardens, we are here to assist you.

]]>Popular Sparkling Water Brand La Croix Faces Lawsuit; Plaintiff Alleges that Ingredients are Not ‘All-Natural’https://www.turnpikelaw.com/popular-sparkling-water-brand-la-croix-faces-lawsuit-plaintiff-alleges-that-ingredients-are-not-all-natural/
Fri, 26 Oct 2018 10:00:27 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5266Read More »]]>If you have entered virtually any grocery store in South Florida in the last few years, you have most likely seen displays selling the popular sparkling water ‘La Croix’. Fortune Magazine reports that the company’s sales are exploding, with revenue up by nearly 35 percent in the last two years. Young consumers have flocked to the beverage as a replacement for sodas and other sugary drinks. However, new questions are being raised over the marketing of La Croix. A plaintiff in Cook County, Illinois contends that the sparkling water is not nearly as ‘innocent’ as it seems.

Understanding the Lawsuit Against La Croix

The plaintiff alleges that company’s claims that ‘La Croix’ products are ‘all natural’ are false. While labels, packaging, and marketing content claim that La Croix has only two ingredients (carbonated water and natural flavor), the plaintiffs allege that non-natural ingredients and synthetic compounds are used in the manufacturing process. Among other things, the lawsuit states that the sparkling water is manufactured with limonene and linalool. These chemicals are common in insecticides.

The company is not taking these allegations lying down. To be sure, at this point, it is not clear as to what evidence the plaintiffs are using to support the complaint. And for its part, National Beverage Corporation — the Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based company that owns and distributes La Croix products — vehemently denies the claims raised in the complaint. In fact, the company contends that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff is wholly baseless.

What is False Advertising?

False advertising cases are notoriously complex. At Pike & Lustig, our West Palm Beach business lawyers have a comprehensive understanding of these cases and the relevant state and federal regulations. In Florida, companies are prohibited from ‘unfair or deceptive’ advertising in any good or service.

How is ‘unfair and deceptive advertising’ defined? In Florida, plaintiffs generally need to prove that a defendant made a material misrepresentation of fact or omitted a material fact. Statements that are ‘puffery’ or ‘opinion’ are generally not false advertising, regardless of the quality of the underlying product or service.

For example, an eatery that advertises “delicious pizza” is not guilty of false advertising simply because many consumers actually dislike their product. Delicious is fundamentally an opinion based terminology. However, if the eatery states that they won an award for best pizza in South Florida, and that turns out to be a false statement, that is deceptive advertising and thus a violation of Florida law.

Whether or not La Croix’s claims to be ‘all natural’ amount to be false or deceptive advertising will depend entirely on the specific evidence presented by each party.

Contact Our South Florida Business Attorneys

At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our Florida commercial law attorneys have deep experience handling false advertising claims. If your company is facing a lawsuit over advertising regulations, we can help. For a fully private consultation, please do not hesitate to contact our legal team today. We have offices in West Palm Beach, Miami, and Palm Beach Gardens.

Resource:

fortune.com/2017/07/27/la-croix-trend-millennial/

]]>Do the Jacksonville Jaguars Own the Rights to ‘Sacksonville’? Former Linebacker Sayshttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/do-the-jacksonville-jaguars-own-the-rights-to-sacksonville-former-linebacker-says/
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:00:15 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5264Read More »]]>Last January, Florida’s own Jacksonville Jaguars made to the AFC Championship game for the first time in 21 years. On the strength of an elite defensive line, the Jaguars were near the very top of the league in sacking the quarterback for the second straight season. This lead to the team adopting the alliterative nickname ‘Sacksonville’. As this season started, the Jaguars continued to use that name in marketing content and on merchandise.

However, a former player is claiming that he actually owns the rights to the term. According to reporting from CBS News, Dan Skuta — who played linebacker for the Jaguars for two seasons — is attempting to block the team from obtaining trademark rights for the term ‘Sacksonville’. In this post, our top-rated Miami trademark litigation lawyers provide an overview of the issues in dispute in this intellectual property case.

Understanding the Former Linebacker’s Case Against the Jacksonville Jaguars

Dan Skuta signed as a free agent with the Jacksonville Jaguars in the Spring of 2015. He played 26 games for the team, spanning the two seasons. For all but the most diehard of football fans, his time with the Jaguars has been largely forgotten. Dan Skuta himself only recorded 1.5 sacks while on the team. However, he claims that he was far ahead of the curve when it comes to the term ‘Sacksonville’.

In July of 2015, Mr. Skuta registered the ‘Sacksonville’ Instagram page. Soon after that, he also began selling branded merchandise on his website: Sacksonsville.org. While thus far he has made $3,000 in total sales on ‘Sacksonville’ merchandise, he does have clear evidence that he has used the term in a commercial context.

When the Jaguars attempted to register the trademark earlier this year, the former linebacker filed an official ‘Notice of Opposition’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Dan Skuta contends that the team’s use of the mark will confuse reasonable consumers who may be seeking to purchase his personal merchandise and products. In support of his opposition motions, he also claims that the team has actively supported his use and marketing of the term. His legal team raises two key facts: 1) the team never took any action to stop him from using the trademark Sacksonville and 2) the team has used its official account to like and share content from his Sacksonville Instagram page. For its part, the team told reporters that they have no specific comment on this case and that they are in talks with Mr. Skuta to resolve this issue.

Get Help From a South Florida Trademark Litigation Lawyer Today

At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our Miami trademark law attorneys have experience handling all sides of trademark law disputes. If your company is currently involved in a dispute over who owns the rights to a trademark, we are prepared to protect your rights. For immediate legal assistance, please call us at 561-291-8298 (West Palm Beach) or 305-985-5281 (Miami). We also have an appointment-only meeting location in Palm Beach Gardens.

]]>Florida Appeals Court Dismissing Legal Malpractice Claim for Lack of Standinghttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/florida-appeals-court-dismissing-legal-malpractice-claim-for-lack-of-standing/
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:00:10 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5253Read More »]]>On September 26th, 2018, the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida dismissed a legal malpractice claim that was filed by the mother of a special needs child. In the case of lack of Rochelle Driessen v. University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed for lack of standing.

In the United States, plaintiffs must have standing to be eligible to bring a legal case. Without standing, a case cannot be reviewed on its ‘merits’. Here, the court ruled that the child’s mother did not have the legal authority to bring such a claim because she was not the legal guardian of the child and she played no role in retaining the legal clinic as her counsel.

Disagreement With the Legal Advice Offered By the Children and Youth Law Clinic

The core dispute in this case was over what special needs program the child would be placed in. The child’s co-legal guardians, her sister and her grandfather, together sought help from the University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic. Among other things, the clinic was tasked with finding and gaining access to the appropriate educational program to best serve the needs of the vulnerable child.

The child’s mother disagreed with the choices and actions of the Children and Youth Clinic. She was not satisfied with the type of program selected, and she disputed the manner in which the clinic staff characterized the child’s disability. She filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the clinic arguing that their negligence had caused damage.

Legal Malpractice Claims: There Must Be a Duty of Care

Upon review, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of standing. Under Florida law, you must prove that a legal professional owes you a duty of a care in order to be eligible to bring a malpractice claim.

In this case, the mother was neither the child’s legal guardian nor did she choose to retain the services of the Children and Youth Law Clinic. The clinic owed her no legal duty. In cases where no contract existed between a client and an attorney, the client can only bring a legal malpractice claim if they are a third party beneficiary. The third party beneficiary in this case was the child, not the non-legal guardian mother.

The court acknowledges that it is wholly understandable that the mother had concerns about her child’s education and overall well-being, but nonetheless, those reasonable concerns are not sufficient to establish legal standing for the purpose of a malpractice lawsuit.

Contact Our South Florida Legal Malpractice Attorneys Today

At Pike & Lustig, LLP, we are proud to be a the ‘lawyer’s lawyers’. Our law firm has extensive experience complex legal malpractice claims. We can help protect your career and your professional reputation. To schedule a fully confidential review of your case, please contact us today. We have offices in West Palm Beach, Miami, and Palm Beach Gardens, and we handle legal malpractice claims throughout South Florida.

Resource:

3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D18-0999.pdf

]]>EEOC Alleges that Central Florida Restaurant Fired Female Bartender for Complaining About Sexual Harassmenthttps://www.turnpikelaw.com/eeoc-alleges-that-central-florida-restaurant-fired-female-bartender-for-complaining-about-sexual-harassment/
Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:00:20 +0000https://www.turnpikelaw.com/?p=5251Read More »]]>On September 27th, 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that the agency has filed a sexual discrimination lawsuit against Christini’s Ristorante Italiano, a restaurant based in the heart of Orlando, Florida.

The EEOC alleges that the restaurant unlawfully discriminated against a female bartender on the basis of her sex by permitting and encouraging sexual harassment and by retaliating against her when she raised her complaints to management. In this article, our top-rated West Palm Beach employment law attorneys provide an overview of the specific allegations raised by the EEOC.

Federal Law: Workplace Sexual Harassment is Sex Discrimination

Background

The female bartender who is the plaintiff in this case began working at the restaurant in 2015. She was employed through the early part of 2017. During her time at Christini’s Ristorante Italian, the EEOC contends that she was subject to repeated sexual harassment from patrons, co-workers, and managers. The EEOC also argues that the restaurant’s owner both permitted and encouraged a workplace environment where sexual harassment became the norm. Among other things, the EEOC’s sex discrimination lawsuit contends that:

Sexually charged comments were commonplace from patrons, co-workers, and managers;

The plaintiff was told to dress ‘sexy’ and ‘date ready’ for patrons and was repeatedly propositioned by male customers; and

When she complained about sexual harassment on the part of a manager, the company retaliated by firing her.

Understanding the Legal Standard

The conduct alleged in this case, if proven to be true, amounts to a clear violation of federal labor regulations. More specifically, sexual harassment of this nature is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VII, sexual harassment qualifies as an impermissible form of sex-based discrimination.

Employees have a right to a workplace that is free from unlawful, unwanted sexual harassment. Not only do employers have to refrain from harassing workers, but they must also take proactive measures to foster a harassment-free work environment. Any and all claims of sexual harassment should always be handled seriously by managers and employers. Further, companies are responsible for the overall conditions for employees, including the conduct of the patrons. An employer can potentially be held liable for sexual harassment on the part of customers if the plaintiff can prove that the employer allowed, permitted, or encouraged such conduct.

Relief Being Sought

In its lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the EEOC is seeking all forms of relief that the court deems appropriate in this case. Among other things, this includes;